Letter to John Dear, SJ

The following letter is in response to John Dear's June 9 column

Dear Fr. John Dear:

Jesus says absolutely nothing about abortion, so for the life of me (no pun intended), I can't understand why Christians could ever take it more seriously than outright murder, war, poverty, or even adultery. Jesus spoke out against these things, but he didn't speak out against abortion.

I would rather not speak to why he did not. I do not know the cultural practices regarding abortion in that particular region in the first century and whether they were frowned upon or accepted.

But regardless of what abortion was or was not at the time, the question I would like to pose is why it is considered a grave sin in the current moral/political context. I am sure you could cite me various references to the Catechism, but I am not a Catholic and am not beholden to any Catholic teachings or practices. However, I consider myself a moral person as well as a firm believer in nonviolence and progressive social change. I am not against any religion that carries this agenda, and I am certainly in agreement with you personally on most, if not all, other issues.

In short, I would like to approach abortion primarily from a rational, political perspective. I will admit right now that I do not think abortion is desirable or necessarily moral or righteous, but I feel that it can be equally or more undesirable or immoral to raise a child you cannot adequately love and support. Furthermore, I do not consider giving your child up for adoption an acceptable alternative to abortion in all circumstances. We can discuss this further, if you would like.

I would like to begin the political/radical discussion on abortion by referring to your recent column on the Dr. Tiller murder. I found it to be quite lacking in balance and clarity. Dr. Tiller is put in the same category as a person who would wage war or commit murder (defined by the laws as something quite far from abortion). You may believe that Dr. Tiller was misguided at best or a “murderer” at worst, but it is clear that George Tiller had a wide global following from progressives for his willingness to perform late-term abortions at great personal risk and despite heavy criticisms. He has been credited with saving women’s lives, and he is known as a mild-mannered man who never lashed out at his opponents. Yet he was threatened, spied on and had to be escorted to work by federal marshals. He survived an assassination attempt years ago and still continued his practice.

The news program Democracy Now! featured him prominently as a hero and a martyr. While I do not agree with the clear pro-abortion angle taken by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! aired speeches given by Dr. Tiller that warmed my heart. He was a firm advocate for women’s equality. He trusted that women knew what’s best for their bodies. This is something that few men are capable of doing. Your column did not once address reproductive rights or the oppression of women in this country. Dr. Tiller addressed these points in words and in actions, and I believe that this is why he was really killed — not because Mr. Roeder thought he was a “baby killer.”
I know you are coming from a far more progressive and logical standpoint than the people behind Tiller’s murder, but by putting abortion in the same category as murder or war, I believe you are treading in dangerous waters. How is aborting a potential life the same as killing someone who lives outside her mother's womb? I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, but how can anyone in all seriousness confuse abortion with outright murder? They are not the same thing.

It is quite unfortunate that the real message I glean from many so-called “pro-life” males to women is simple: We (and/or the government) are in charge of your bodies. We can impregnate you, forcibly even, but it is “immoral” for you to abort the fetus. And if any man dares to help you abort, he is just as guilty of “murder.”

I, for one, expect much better from a secular society that ostensibly favors equality among sexes.

Respectfully,

Matthew Johnson